DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. Claims 21-54 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
3. No foreign priority has been claimed. This application is a continuation of application 17/957,161 now US Pat # 11887377 filed 9/30/2022 which is a CON of 16/367,740 now US Pat # 11482011 filed 03/28/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/04/2024 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings submitted on 1/04/2024 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 21-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 21 recites:
21. A system for setting an autonomy level for host vehicle navigation, the system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to obtain condition data related to one or more conditions of an environment in which the host vehicle is traveling;
a processor configured to:
receive the condition data;
based on the condition data, determine an autonomy level for host vehicle navigation; and cause a host vehicle to operate at the determined autonomy level.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 28, 35, 39, 45 and 51.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 28 & 45 belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claims 21 and 39 are system claims and claims 35 and 51 a non-transitory computer readable medium claims.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 21 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “determine an autonomy level for host vehicle navigation; and cause a host vehicle to operate at the determined autonomy level.”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 28, 35, 39, 45 and 51.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “ (A) one or more sensors configured to obtain condition data related to one or more conditions of an environment in which the host vehicle is traveling; (B) receive the condition data;” (claims 21, 28, 35, 39, 45 and 51) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites “processor” (claims 21, 28, 35, 39, 45 and 51)) however the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [0022] describing a variety of different types of “processors” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “processor” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, changing a setting (autonomy level) maybe done by a human as level 4/5 is not currently an option.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 8, and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claims 21, 28, 35, 39, 45 as well as 51, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 22-27, 29-34, 36-38, 40-44, 46-50 and 52-54, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 21, 28, 35, 39, 45 as well as 51.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
9. Claims 21-54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In this instance the autonomy level is selected and chosen form levels 0-5. It is Examiner’s understanding that levels 4-5 have not currently been achieved and has not been adequately been described in applicants specification in accordance with the USC 112 enablement requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
11. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. Claims 21-54 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shibata et al. 2020/0293034.
With regards to claims 21, 28, 35 39, 45 and 51, Shibata et al. 2020/0293034 teaches systems, methods and non-transitory machine-readable storage mediums for setting an autonomy level for host vehicle navigation, comprising:
a system monitor configured to provide status information associated with an autonomous driving system of the host vehicle (paragraph 0013);
one or more sensors configured to obtain condition data related to one or more conditions of an environment in which the host vehicle is traveling;(paragraph 0043)
a processor (34,44; paragraph 0046) configured to: receive the condition data; (paragraph 0047)
based on the condition data, determine an autonomy level for host vehicle navigation; (paragraph 0047) and cause a host vehicle to operate at the determined autonomy level. (paragraph 0047-0048)
With regards to claims 22, 29, 43 and 49, Shibata et al. 2020/0293034 teaches the autonomy level for host vehicle navigation is selected from among level 0, level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4, and level 5. (paragraph 0041)
With regards to claims 23, 30 and 36, Shibata et al. 2020/0293034 one or more sensors comprise one or more of a RADAR, a LiDAR, an image sensor, a thermal sensor, a weather sensor, an ultrasound sensor, and an acoustic sensor. (paragraph 0051)
With regards to claims 24 and 31, Shibata et al. 2020/0293034 the condition data includes one or more of weather conditions and traffic conditions. (paragraph 0043)
With regards to claims 25, 32, 37, 41 and 47, Shibata et al. 2020/0293034 causing the host vehicle to operate at the determined autonomy level includes using one or more autonomous actuators to manipulate driving controls, and wherein the one or more autonomous actuators comprise a steering actuator, an acceleration actuator, and a braking actuator. (paragraph 0042-0043)
With regards to claims 26, 33, 38, 44, 50 and 54, Shibata et al. 2020/0293034 the processor is configured to, prior to causing the host vehicle to operate at the selected autonomy level, provide an indication to a passenger of the host vehicle.(paragraph 0011)
With regards to claims 27 and 34, Shibata et al. 2020/0293034 the indication includes a request that the passenger take control of the host vehicle. (paragraph 0041)
With regards to claim 40, Shibata et al. 2020/0293034 the status information includes one or more of operational status for each of one or more sensors and status for one or more autonomous actuators of the host vehicle. (paragraph 0013 & 0067-0070)
With regards to claim 42, Shibata et al. 2020/0293034 the processor is further configured to, in response to detecting, based on the status information, that one or more sensors have been compromised, select an autonomy level of level 2 or below. (paragraph 0069 & 0089)
Examiner's Note:
13. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
14. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishi US Pat Pub 2018/0373245 teaches autonomous operation for an autonomous vehicle objective in an multi-vehicle environment.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
17. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
18. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
19. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 March 2, 2026